1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates generally to horticultural products, and more particularly to a method and apparatus for packaging horticultural products such as cut flowers.
2. Discussion of the Background
The market for horticultural products, particularly cut flowers, is large and continues to grow. In this industry, it is important that the horticultural product be fresh when it is presented to a consumer. The freshness of the horticultural product will determine both (1) how the product initially appears to the consumer, and (2) how long the product will last for the consumer. The product's initial appearance is particularly important in a retail setting such as a cut flower display in a store because consumers will often base their purchasing decision on the initial appearance. However, initial appearance is also important when pre-paid flowers are delivered to a consumer. How long the flowers last is also an important part of customer satisfaction—most customers will not be happy with flowers that wilt the day after they are received no matter how nice they looked the previous day.
The manner in which horticultural products are shipped plays an important role in both the initial appearance of the horticultural product and how long the horticultural product will last. Today, cut flowers are typically shipped from a grower by airfreight without water. Then they are either repackaged into an upstanding, open box with 1″–2″ of water on the bottom such that the ends of the stems can take up water to keep the flowers fresh, or they continue through distribution without water. With either method, the flowers are typically refrigerated to preserve their freshness. Both of these methods have obvious drawbacks. Shipping the flowers dry reduces their life no matter how well they are refrigerated. Shipping the flowers in an open container partially filled with water requires that the containers not be overturned during shipping, which increases shipping costs and distribution time.
Some attempts to provide a device that will allow flowers to be shipped such that their stems are in water have been disclosed in the patent literature. However, each of these alternative devices has drawbacks and, to the knowledge of the inventor, none of the alternative devices has met with any commercial success.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,453,906 to Hamlet discloses a device including tubular container with a “stopper” made in whole or in part from a “resilient material” inserted into each end. The stopper in the top end of the tubular container includes a bore sized to give an air-tight fit around a stem. The stopper is of a size to make it fit hermetically in the top end of the tube. The bottom end of the tube also has a stopper with a bore formed therein. The bottom end also includes a flexible diaphragm that stretches to fill the void created when water is taken up by a stem.
This device has several drawbacks. First, the requirement for the flexible diaphragm increases the packaging cost. Second, the “resilient material” illustrated in the '906 patent does not appear to be very resilient. The drawings show very little deformation of the material in areas where it is fitted into the tube. Given the issue date of the '906 patent in 1945, it is very likely that the “resilient material” is rubber. The problem with a material of such a resiliency is that it requires a relatively close match between the size of the bore in the stopper and the diameter of a plant stem inserted therein. Plant stem diameters can vary from as little as ⅛ inch to as much as ⅝ inch or greater. Thus, it is necessary to either make the bore to a specific size to match a particular stem, or provide a plurality of stoppers with different sized bores to accommodate cut flowers of different sizes.
This is not a practical alternative for two reasons. First, flower stems are not regularly shaped and often have protrusions (e.g., rose stems have protrusions where thorns are removed). It would be necessary to size the bore to accept any protrusion or other irregularity. However, considering the relatively inflexible material of '906 patent, the walls of bore may not contact the stem in areas other than the location of the protrusion or irregularity, resulting in a poor seal. Second, a requirement for matching stem sizes to bore sizes would be time-consuming, and therefore expensive, in a mass-production environment. This would be especially true in an automated mass-production environment in which thousands of flowers are packaged because stems would need to be measured, sorted and staged for insertion into pre-arranged stoppers of the correct size.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,315,782 describes a device including a flexible walled pouch filled with a “moisturized gel” of a “fluid paste consistency” (col. 2, lines 46–66). The top end of the pouch includes a “puncturable insert” made from a closed cell foam plastics material such as a “medium density polyethylene foam sold under the trade name JIFFYCELL.” Applicants believe this is a rigid foam of the type that is commonly green in color and used in floral arrangements. The edges of the bag are adhered to this foam, and no compression of the foam is disclosed. The '782 patent teaches forming a hole for a plant stem in the foam insert by pushing a sharpened pencil through the foam.
The most significant drawback associated with the '782 patent is that it does not form a good seal around the stem. The '782 patent recognizes this when it states that “the tendency to leak is reduced by that fact that it is a gel material” in the pouch (col. 3, lines 49–50). If the seal around the stem were good, then it would not be necessary to use a “gel” rather than water. The poor seal is caused by the lack of compression and the use of a rigid foam. Another drawback associated with the '782 device is that, because the foam is relatively rigid, it is again necessary to size the hole to the stem that is to be inserted therein.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,103,586 discloses a device including a rigid cup-shaped container, a first layer comprised of rigid foam, a second layer of a “penetrable elastomeric sealing elastomer . . . chosen to be sufficiently elastic to flow at about room temperature,” and an optional third layer also comprised of a rigid foam. The sealing elastomer is preferably an RTV silicone rubber made from a two part liquid silicone that cures into the desired flowable sealing elastomer. The chief drawbacks associated with this device are the cost associated with using multiple layers and the time required for the elastomer to cure.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,941,572 and 5,115,915 to Harris disclose a device comprising a rigid container with a non-absorbent foam block that is either preformed of a rigid foam material adhered to the container or formed from a foamed-in-place foam dispensed from an aerosol container. Col. 6, lns 43–58. The preformed block embodiment of this device suffers from the drawbacks of having to use an adhesive to secure the block to the container and, because the foam is rigid, the need for sizing holes in the block to match the stems. The foam-in-place embodiment suffers from the high cost associated with aerosol foams, and requires something to hold the stems in place while the foam is introduced.